NASA Bashing & Perspectives

Palomar · 2004-05-03 16:35:08

*Other threads similar to this have gone off-topic or have grown a bit heated. And anyway, this doesn't pertain to Mars *exclusively* so I'm going to start a new thread.

I read the following in a book I purchased the other day, entitled _Chariots for Apollo_. The book is quoting two persons interviewed (which I'm going to quote -- not the book itself), so I'm not sure of any copyright issues. Adrian can delete it, if so.

Get a load of this (maybe we can be a bit thankful and grateful we're even still "doing" and "going" to the extent that we are, all things considered ... and yes, that includes me; I've done my share of NASA bashing)..and no, I'm certainly not advocating complacency:

"Around that time [1972], part of what I was doing was speaking before groups and defending the space program," says Ozzie Williams [he'd been in charge of design, construction, and testing of LEM attitude-control rockets]. "There was a lot of public disaffection with the space program. We had beaten the pants off the Russians. We proved we could do it. 'All right,' the public said, 'so that's the end of it. Let's stop throwing money into space.' Well, I had done quite a bit of research and NASA encouraged us to talk to consumer groups, chambers of commerce, church groups and so forth, to convince them that money sent into space was not thrown away. The big, 'in' cry in those days was, 'Kill the space program!' I had statistics showing that in 1972, the year of the last Apollo flights to the moon, the space budget was $4.5 billion and the amount of money in the soil bank was $7.2 billion: That's money the government was giving farmers -not- to grow crops; -completely- thrown away.

How we ever got things like Viking and Pioneer and Voyager through, I don't know. The money we saved, the money that -didn't- go into space -- where did it go? I don't know that either. Certainly it didn't go into human resources, which is what the public wanted. 'Take care of the people,' they said. 'Never mind space.' Where did they think hurricane warnings and crop analyses came from?

I remember how the public got what it wanted. They got NASA to shrink into a very tiny thing, and the great people who made Apollo were ... are now out selling insurance, or they're retired, or they're teaching. But they're not doing the kinds of things that could solve some of our problems today.

I read in a book that in 1980, America spent more money playing Space Invaders than it spent on the Space Shuttle. I wish I had had *that* statistic in '76. The feeling, back then, was that the space program was being run by eggheads. --->I had the strong impression that grassroots America was with the program only as long as it was entertaining.<--- And they had the feeling that the scientists were not to be trusted. And the answer is that the man on the street never had the time to get enough background to really understand what was going on. And those who opposed the expenditures found their chance to kill it, once the 'stunt' was over. There was Senator Walter Mondale, who wanted to kill the Space Shuttle, absolutely kill it. Even the Congress was thinking that way. --->They didn't understand the nature of technical progress.<---"

Quoting Lynn Radcliffe: "As close to space as I am, I truly do think it's going to save the world ultimately. I'm thinking in terms of hundreds of years, but things have a way of happening a lot sooner. When I was a kid looking at Collier's Wonder Book, which came out in 1920, they were talking about atomic energy and airlines to Europe and trips to the moon, and I thought these things were hundreds of years away. But it all happened while I was still a relatively young man. And when Apollo came along, we never really told the people what space could do for their future. People have self-interest, and you've got to show people the microelectronics that came out of the LEM, how they would soon be able to bring computers into the home, and what *that* could mean. We didn't keep the people on our side, we never helped them to understand...that's the worst part of it."

*So...how do we, today, appeal to the public's self-interest?

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Having trouble with bold feature; corrected text.

Palomar · 2004-05-04 08:16:30

'Take care of the people,' they said. 'Never mind space.' Where did they think hurricane warnings and crop analyses came from?
... And when Apollo came along, we never really told the people what space could do for their future. People have self-interest, and you've got to show people the microelectronics that came out of the LEM, how they would soon be able to bring computers into the home, and what *that* could mean. We didn't keep the people on our side, we never helped them to understand...that's the worst part of it."
*So...how do we, today, appeal to the public's self-interest?
--Cindy

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/imag … html]Click

*Well, here's another way in which NASA is helping the public "in general" (or at least a very generous portion of the central section of the U.S.). This is great (I used to live in tornado country myself), but to what extent should NASA become (or be viewed *as*) a humanitarian organization? Or an extension of the National Weather Service/NOAA? What about the original founding purposes?

Kind of seems like a bit of a tight-rope walk.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-05-04 08:59:30

Re-define what you/we mean by "public" in this day and age, and then start the debate (again) about to appeal to the (?) public, starting all over from the new square one.

Palomar · 2004-05-04 11:56:05

Re-define what you/we mean by "public" in this day and age, and then start the debate (again) about to appeal to the (?) public, starting all over from the new square one.

*Hi dicktice: I'm interpreting the use of the word "public" in the comments I quoted as pertaining to the citizenry (taxpayer, voter, etc.).

Okay, so back to the question I asked in my first post, which dicktice refers to: How do (can) we, today, appeal to the public's self-interest?

I suppose the tornado warning system NASA's been working on in conjunction with the National Weather Service/NOAA is one example. A good, useful thing...but I doubt -it- is going to get people fired up to want to go to Mars. :-\ That's the "fine line" I'm worried about NASA treading, and it seems a combination of issues: Doing useful and worthwhile things with taxpayer $ (such as the tornado warning thing); being responsible to the taxpayer; there's no seeming great outcry from the public to get us to Mars so NASA's got to do something with its budget (besides all the marvelous probes and space telescopes and other science, etc., it does -- but how many people care about that even?); but in the meanwhile being careful not to be bound up in pursuits and etc. it wasn't originally designed for (:edit:) and people becoming so conditioned to NASA being the pal of the NWS/NOAA and etc. that it'll be easy for gov't officials opposed to space exploration to continue paring down NASA's mission and purpose until it's barely recognizable (even by today's standards) from what it was in the heydays of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.

I'm worried about NASA becoming progressively more and more "derailed" from its original objectives (space exploration). But then it's got to produce consistent results to keep afloat and taxpayer $ rolling in. I'm just wondering where the dividing line is.

I feel I'm babbling...but those are the points I'm trying to make.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-04 19:15:34

A very interesting view of what was happening with NASA 'on the ground' in the early 70s, Cindy. I can hardly imagine the disappointment of all those wonderful talented people, with such plans for human space exploration, when it gradually dawned on them that congress and the public had lost interest. I remember how frustrating it was for me as a highschool student; how much more so for the people actually involved in the hardware development?!

I wish I knew how best to inspire politicians and the public to support human space missions. I guess if we get the public back 'on side', the politicians will follow(?), so maybe we should be emphasising the adventure/exploration/excitement/maybe-you-can-travel-in-space-one-day kind of angle?
It's hard for me to contemplate how to make space exploration sound exciting and worthwhile when, to my mind, it's a given, a self-evident truth, a no-brainer!!
This year the X-Prize will probably be won and the small private space companies might begin to do their stuff. It must be a good opportunity for the space fraternity to get their point across to the 'unbelievers'(! ), especially in the wake of the MERs superlative performance.

Bill White · 2004-05-04 22:56:45

Take a look at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ssion]this:

"We have to start by asking a very fundamental question: Why are we bothering at all?" said Carly Fiorina, chairwoman and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.
"Why are we thinking about going to moon, Mars and beyond when there are so many problems right here on Earth and so much budget pressure right here on Earth?"
Even though the president's exploration initiative represents a mission of greatness, glory and scientific value and is inspiring, that's not enough, Fiorina said during the commission's final public hearing, held in New York.
"The pragmatist in all of us says, none of those rationales is sufficient," said Fiorina, a commission member. "Although I believe them strongly, individually, I don't believe they are sufficient to compel a broad-based, long-term bipartisan level of support."
Fiorina said the most fundamental reason for sending robots and astronauts into the universe is, "If we don't do it, someone will." She cited China's burgeoning space program, as well as that of Russia and India. The president's initiative also will help preserve America's technological leadership, currently threatened by the exodus of high-tech manufacturing jobs overseas, she said.

Okay, Shaun and Cindy and anyone else. Why space?

50 words or less.

If I had ever been a US Marine. "Give me 50!"

= = =

Edit: Once we can agree on a 50 word answer, then we use the power of marketing to get others to agree. If marketers can convince people Coke v Pepsi means something why can't they convince people that going into space means something.

Or are space advocates "too noble" to look at things that way?

Palomar · 2004-05-05 06:18:48

Take a look at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ssion]this:
"We have to start by asking a very fundamental question: Why are we bothering at all?" said Carly Fiorina, chairwoman and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.
"Why are we thinking about going to moon, Mars and beyond when there are so many problems right here on Earth and so much budget pressure right here on Earth?"
Even though the president's exploration initiative represents a mission of greatness, glory and scientific value and is inspiring, that's not enough, Fiorina said during the commission's final public hearing, held in New York.
"The pragmatist in all of us says, none of those rationales is sufficient," said Fiorina, a commission member. "Although I believe them strongly, individually, I don't believe they are sufficient to compel a broad-based, long-term bipartisan level of support."
Fiorina said the most fundamental reason for sending robots and astronauts into the universe is, "If we don't do it, someone will." She cited China's burgeoning space program, as well as that of Russia and India. The president's initiative also will help preserve America's technological leadership, currently threatened by the exodus of high-tech manufacturing jobs overseas, she said.
Okay, Shaun and Cindy and anyone else. Why space?
50 words or less.

*Why -not- space?

Besides my life-long fascination with astronomy and space exploration and Apollo, Zubrin's opening statements in _The Case for Mars_ and Ayn Rand's essay _Apollo and Dionysus_ address the issue well enough.

The budget issue. Re-read in my first post how the gov't was "caring for" the national budget in 1972. Also, Apollo was a bargain -- it only cost 1/3 of 1% of 1970's GNP. A lot of the budgetary issue is the MISmanagement of resources/$$$ going elsewhere, being misappropriated, thrown away, etc. Yet space exploration is the first to get its neck on the chopping block of blame. Why is that? Especially when facts and figures prove *otherwise*?

As for all the problems on Earth...yep, and there likely will always be lots of problems on Earth unless human nature changes. Are space advocates responsible for seeing to it that all problems (probably an impossible task anyway) are resolved before we can go into space again?

Should an 18-year-old be disallowed to leave home until mom and dad have all their differences ironed out, every debt settled, zero problems, home paid for, two brand-new cars in a double garage, etc., etc.? "No, you can't leave home, go to college, get your own apartment, move out into the world on your own *until* your family has *all* their crap straightened out." Who -wouldn't- consider that an unreasonable demand?

It's the same thing, IMO.

China continued to have problems even after it burned its sea-going fleet all those hundreds of years ago.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I should also note that I read last evening, in _Chariots for Apollo_ that even some Russian scientists/engineers in the 1940s and 1950s were very skeptical and ho-hum about space exploration. One stated he saw "no practical use" for artificial satellites. What if short-sighted people always called the shots and got their way? I guess we'd be chiseling away on stone tablets.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-03 16:35:08

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

#2 2004-05-04 08:16:30

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

#3 2004-05-04 08:59:30

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

#4 2004-05-04 11:56:05

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

#5 2004-05-04 19:15:34

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

#6 2004-05-04 22:56:45

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

#7 2004-05-05 06:18:48

Re: NASA Bashing & Perspectives

Board footer